A psychopathic think-tank has suggested a radical
solution to man-made global warming, by murdering impoverished
strangers so the wealthy can offset their carbon emissions.
With CO2 emissions growing by over 3% a year, the lobby group
insists there should be no delay in reducing the pitter-patter
of tiny carbon footprints.
Environmentalists have known for some time that planting trees
can be time-consuming and boring, whereas paying a hitman to
kill a few families on a Pacific atoll can easily offset a
trans-Atlantic flight.
For a monthly fee ‘Carbine Offset’ will shoot people you
weren’t likely to meet anyway, so you can continue to use an
outdoor hot tub in January with a completely clean conscience.

Carbon offset opportunities

Graham Collis says his group has never been so busy.
While driving a Prius is too horrible a fate for his customers
to imagine, many are more than happy to ‘offset murder’ for the
sake of their children’s future.
For many, such a simple choice will come as relief. As Collis
explained, “It’s much harder to slightly reduce our own
emissions, than to completely stop someone else’s.”
Targeting the World’s poorest would appear to be cruel at
first, but Collis pointed out that the malnourished are poorly
insulated, and idle fat cats make better
carbon sinks.
The figures are astonishing. Wiping out just a handful of
sub-Saharan subsistence farmers could offset several winter
skiing trips.
Though some have criticised the plan as ‘monstrous’, Collis is
unrepentant.
“If we’re honest, none of my clients are ever going to change
their behaviour, so the people we’re offsetting were going to
die shortly anyway”, he insisted.
“At least this way, we can tell our children that we managed to
hit a few of our targets.”

21 comments:

When you take an idiotic position on a good law, of course you can't understand it. Given the frequent rage that Democommie and Laci display, I can see why they oppose Stand Your Ground. They want to be free to make threats and rant and rave without any danger to themselves.

What danger would I be in and from whom, for comments I make here? Are you saying that you gunzloonz might react violently to being told that you're hyocrites, idiots, sociopaths and fucking LIARS What sort of act might that violence entail? I'm gonna have to guess it would be physical, otherwise, why would it be a concern of mine. Sticks and stones might break my bones and .45, 9mm or .357 might hurt me from a ways off (a .223, .308, .50 BMG from some greater distance) but WORDS? well, you know how that rhyme ends.

You did say, just the other day that if a guy gets punched he should SHOOT his assailant.

"Someone like that punches you, and you do nothing, what do you expect to be the response? The attacker is likely to punch again, this time harder. Notice how the good guy with the gun hasn't been charged?"

So, i'm pretty sure, Greggie, that your response to a "threat" (perceived or genuine) is to shoot first and worry about justifying it later. That's always a lot easier if the shootee is not alive to dispute the shooter's story.

So, what is it, Greggie, a veiled threat from you towards me, Laci and others who think you're a clown who obssesses about his penis substitute or just more hot air? It's gotta be one or the other, son.

Democommie, if you were my father, I'd seek to have you committed. I doubt I could handle your rage, and there are homes for people with dementia.

The point, which you so obviously missed, is that you and Laci find Stand Your Ground laws to be terrifying. You know yourselves well enough to realize that you mouth off and make threats. That makes you worry that if someone is armed in a state with Stand Your Ground, you'll get shot.

The truth of my side is that for the vast majority of us, we'll give no response. We'll keep an eye on you, but as long as you're not putting our lives in danger, you're free to be the arseholes that you are.

Get it? This is you projecting your rage into everyone around you. That's why you fear Stand Your Ground.

Beyond that, recall that you, Democommie, have expressed your wish to see me shot in a gunfight, while Laci has said he'd like to get within one centimeter of my face and pound sense into my head. Neither of those meets the standard that would interest the police, but they indicate a general attitude of rage and a desire for harming others.

Punching someone is a whole other order of attack. Someone who throws punches at an innocent person has crossed the line into actual violence. Your side feels sorry for violent people, so long as they don't have guns. Sympathy, that?

“Get Away With Murder” laws? Do you mean the laws that allow a citizen to defend themselves if confronted by a credible threat of death or great bodily harm? Just so we're clear, that will be a “yes” or a “no”, Madame Barrister. Your inability to provide a “yes” or a “no” answer will be noted.

The intent of the registration and licensure laws that MikeB and others advocate is to reduce gun violence. The intent is clearly honorable, and some people believe that honorable intent is sufficient, regardless of how the law can be perverted to the detriment of law-abiding citizens. This same justification can be applied to stand your ground laws. The intent is to shield law-abiding citizens from prosecution should they find themselves in a situation in which they are required to use deadly force to protect themselves or someone else.

Endgame:1. You do not believe that honorable intent is sufficient, in which case you're a hypocrite, or2. You do not believe that self-defense is okay, in which case you are an evolutionary dead end.

Moon, you're spewing double-talking nonsense again. The intent of the stand your ground law is what you said. But, criminals are using it more than the law abiding. Doesn't that kinda ruin the whole thing?

"Given the frequent rage that Democommie and Laci display, I can see why they oppose Stand Your Ground. They want to be free to make threats and rant and rave without any danger to themselves."

is yours.

Tell me what the danger to me and others would be? Do you mean that some idiot with his gun in his silly cross draw rig might decide to shoot me because he didn't like my tone of voice? Because I'm pretty sure that "shooting somebody who I don't like how he talks to me." is a less than adequate defense for an innocent plea in a homicide case. Maybe in that peabrain of yours, mired in the fantasy world where you think you COULD shoot people for insulting you and get away with it (excepting of course the scenario where only the shooter survives and claims he "feared for his life"--reasonably?) it flies, but not here on planet Earth.

So, who should I be afraid of Greggie, those same people that you are saying are responsible and rational gun owners? Or is it just some small group, say 10% or so, that have really, really shitty impulse control and might throw down on somebody because of an imagined slight? I think we both know the answer, but for you, it would require admitting that your nonsensical 2nd Amendment stance is farcical, well farcical and tragic, but farcical for sure.

Moonshinola:

"“Get Away With Murder” laws? Do you mean the laws that allow a citizen to defend themselves if confronted by a credible threat of death or great bodily harm? Just so we're clear, that will be a “yes” or a “no”, Madame Barrister. Your inability to provide a “yes” or a “no” answer will be noted."

Are you still screwing your neighbor's mule? That will also require a "yes" or "no" answer.

Do you really think that your query is original or intllectually stimulating?

Nope, Democommie, I've told you many times that I'd only use my gun if my life or the life of another innocent person were in danger. You keep ignoring that.

What I see here is that you're an angry and bitter old man who wants to feel free to spew vitriol wherever you go. You're afraid that someone might take offense and hurt you. That's projection, since rational people would just ignore you or calmly ask you to leave.

That's baloney Greg. You've called many shoots legitimate in which there was no credible threat. You almost always stand up for the shooter no matter how flimsy the threat is. A slap in the face, shoot the fucker. A wrong look even could be construed as sufficient ground for defending yourself. Isn't that right?

"I have never engaged in beastiality, whether with a mule or any other animal."

I note that you could not follow the same rules that you laid out for mikeb302000 in your question to him. Hoist on your own petard is one of the many terms ("putting your own dick in the wringer" is another) used when people do something that they think is witty and turn out to be about half right.

"Back at you, friend. I dub thee "troll", and will no longer respond to you. Be well."

Ooooh, somebody's fee-fees are hurt. You'll no longer respond to me? You must know that it breaks my heart to hear that. Please, please, please mikeb302000, scrub Moonshine's comment before Greggie sees it and follows suit.

"Beyond that, recall that you, Democommie, have expressed your wish to see me shot in a gunfight,"

And that is what you consider a threat? You are truly fucking stupid, really.

A threat, shit-for-brains would be me saying I was going to SHOOT you. I was expressing a desire that you would get a taste of the justice that you so casually offer to carry out on someone whom you consider a threat. Not that I think you would do anything except shit your pants if anyone actually pulled a gun on you--or maybe just plead for your life, because you know what you would do if you got the chance, you'd just go ahead and pop that scumbag. "

"while Laci has said he'd like to get within one centimeter of my face and pound sense into my head."

So you consider that a threat? Again, he didn't say he was planning on tracking you down and beating on you, or are you maybe fantasizing about how you'd get the drop on him and send him straight to Boot Hill with your trust revolver?

"Neither of those meets the standard that would interest the police, but they indicate a general attitude of rage and a desire for harming others."

If I thought that either of you were actively seeking to harm me, I'd have spoken with the police already. As things stand, you've only expressed your wish to see me harmed. Mikeb accuses me regularly of having a sick attitude, but you two have actually expressed your desire to see an innocent person come to a bad end.

My point throughout this thread has been that both of you are in serious need of anger management classes, at the least. If you'd calm down, you'd realize that I'm not the person you project me as being.